- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:35:39 -0500
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: "jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Andrew, I am confused by your "This may be where we disagree. I think that the visual presence of “required” is part of the passing of 3.3.2" following your example #1: "<label for=“fn”>First name</label>(required)<input type=“text” id=“fn”> — 1.3.1 issue, 3.3.2 ok" and your statement: "Yes, but to pass 3.3.2 you don’t necessarily need to have the label be programmatically associated with the control. 1.3.1 requires that the equivalent information be available programmatically, but If I had this, I believe it would pass 3.3.2 and fail 1.3.1: <span>First name (required)</span><input type=“text”>" Also, please can you also respond to my comments in the last email about: - using only HTML5 "required" or aria-required=true without a visual cue - why other techniques like G85 or SCR18 or ARIA2 do not include 3.3.2 as applicable SC and the need to make G83 consistent with those techniques? Thanks a lot, Sailesh Panchang On 2/16/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: >>I agree, this code passes 3.3.2 for "First name" and fails 1.3.1 for >>"First name" and 1.3.1 also for "required". > > This may be where we disagree. I think that the visual presence of > “required” is part of the passing of 3.3.2. > > AWK >
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 16:36:08 UTC